Cano-Saldarriaga v. Holder, Jr., 729 F.3d 25

Cano, a Colombian native and lawful permanent resident since 1981, faced removal after criminal convictions (shoplifting 1992; assault with a deadly weapon 1997) and other charges; he applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).
The Immigration Judge granted cancellation based on Cano’s substantial mental disability despite his criminal history.
On de novo review the BIA reversed the IJ, concluding Cano’s criminal history outweighed any favorable considerations from his disability, and remanded for entry of a removal order and country designation.
After the BIA remand, Cano filed timely new applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the IJ denied those claims and Cano appealed to the BIA (currently pending).
The First Circuit considered whether it could review the BIA order now, noting unresolved questions about finality when the BIA remands for largely ministerial actions and where the petitioner later files new substantive claims.
The court exercised prudential discretion to decline jurisdiction now to avoid piecemeal review and to allow consolidation with Cano’s pending administrative challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court may review the BIA order remanding for entry of removal	Cano sought review of the BIA’s reversal of cancellation and remand	Government argued remand was either not final or review should be deferred while administrative remedies proceed	Court declined to exercise jurisdiction now for prudential reasons, deferring review until administrative proceedings conclude
Whether a BIA remand for largely ministerial acts is a final order under INA	Cano treated the BIA remand as reviewable final action	Government cited cases holding remand for further substantive claims is not final	Court avoided deciding the finality question, finding prudential declination controlled
Whether filing new asylum/CAT claims after a BIA remand affects finality	Cano pursued new relief and sought immediate judicial review	Government argued those later claims counsel against immediate review	Court found later-filed claims pending before the BIA weigh against piecemeal federal review
Whether judicial economy and avoidance of piecemeal review justify deferring	Cano wanted immediate resolution of the BIA reversal	Government urged consolidation with administrative review	Court held interests in judicial economy and avoiding piecemeal review justify withholding review until administrative process completes

Hakim v. Holder, 611 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2010) (discussing finality and prudential declination)
Ahmed v. Holder, 611 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2010) (exhaustion of administrative remedies for judicial review)
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (final order includes matters on which validity of final order is contingent)
Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (remand involving CAT claim and finality considerations)
Chupina v. Holder, 570 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2009) (remand for further CAT and withholding proceedings)
Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2011) (remand to consider voluntary departure treated as final in that context)
Alibasic v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2008) (voluntary departure remand and finality)
Del Pilar v. U.S. Attorney General, 326 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2003) (remand to designate country of removal)
Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 217 (1963) (avoiding bifurcated review and piecemeal adjudication)